2019 has seen more historical verticals grace my palate than any other year ever. It has been a spectacular series, and I might as well start with the first one, thirty-six vintages of Roumier Bonnes Mares, the grandest event of our Grande Fete de Bourgogne in late January. Per Se was the setting, and Roumier would proceed to show us its translation of ‘The Right Stuff.’

The first flight saw us start with 2015 and tiptoe our way back to 2011:

The 2015 was so much tighter than most 2015s early on, a real iron fist. It was so primary at first yet screamed potential. Dr. Doom admired its ‘Chambolle flavors’ and Say It Ain’t Joe loved its ‘sexy spiciness.’ By the time I went back to it another two or three times, it started to talk to me. There was no doubting its palate, and it was clearly the greatest wine in the flight. The 2014 was milder all the way around. There was nice perfume on the black and purple side and even a little beetroot. While there was a lot of playful minerality, the ’14 was even more closed than the ’15 and didn’t quite emerge. The 2013 was the first vintage to show a pinch of openness in its nose. There were brighter red fruits here along with great spice and more forest action. Joe found it ‘a touch green,’ but I liked its little ladybug action. The 2012 was another ‘tough’ wine, but it showed ample rust and spice. Did I mention how Roumier, probably more than ANY other Burgundy producer on Earth, needs time to develop? Fifteen to twenty years sounds about right. We would soon find out. The 2011 hinted at a bright future, as it was more open than anything else so far. 2011 is a nice vintage to drink younger for red Burgs. This was a little gamey with nice zip and a fresh, cedary finish.

We moved on to the next flight of five…

The 2010 was full of bright red cherry aromas, intertwined with lots of minerality and a deep intensity. It was so long on the finish; this was classic ’10 with its tightness and brightness. There were great strawberry elements along with citrus. It had such great pitch. ‘Spectacular with food, truffles in the glass,’ added Kass. The 2009 was a bit perplexing. It was gamey but not cooked; it had that cedary, zippy finish. It was clearly more chunky than the 2010. I wrote, ‘needs more time?’ Someone observed, ‘violet, lavender and mothball.’ There was something bacterial happening with this bottle? Up until the 2008, I had been very disciplined. ‘Starting to abandon my spit glass,’ I wrote. If one drank everything at a 35 vintage vertical, it would be two bottles total, which I can do, but try not to : ) Again some strawberry goodness came out first. The mid-palate was softer, perhaps in a shy phase. The ’08 was round, dusty and lighter than expected, and someone commented, ‘the fruit’s not there.’ ‘Just truck it in,’ Novocaine gushed about the 2007, meaning he would take lots shipped to his home! The 2007 was very delicious and drinkable, despite a bit of vim and buzz still to its backside. I continue to make googly eyes with 2007 red Burgundy; it is tough to argue with the pure pleasure most deliver right now. The Roumier had more vim than most 2007s but was still luscious and silky. The 2006 was more on the tight/acid side, not showing a lot of fruit but the ‘most beguiling’ per Kass. There was good body and an intense finish, but it seemed a bit less dimensional. Kass continued, ‘I keep wanting to stick my nose in it.’ He thought there was some buried treasure there!

The 2005 was another top vintage initially erring on the side of being shut down, although some nice fruit and flesh did emerge from its nose. The palate slowly obliged as well, but this needed time. There was a wealth of raw fruit on the palate, not defined so much, but there, almost burying the finish. This was a shy guy, ‘still too young’ as someone observed aptly. The 2004 did not have ‘the same purity’ per one, and it was definitely greenish in the bamboo, cedary and/or ladybug way. The Professor joked, ‘beetlejuice,’ but Wine Daddy found it ‘delicious.’ I liked it as well; I am not a 2004 hater like many out there. I find the wines enjoyable to drink in general. Hamburger found ‘wetness’ and Say It Ain’t Joe ‘Pu-er tea.’ The 2003 had sweet, fleshy, tea leaf aromas with a creamy, honeyed, flamboyant personality, but it was simple. Wine Mommy noted ‘persimmon.’ Oh, 2002, how do I love thee? The forgotten great vintage of the last twenty years once again reminded me why it should get more attention. ‘Serious’ and ‘so intense’ started my notes. There was great balance and considerable length in this ‘great wine.’ ‘So fragrant,’ cooed one. M&M noted, ‘coiled, more Pinot fruit.’ The 2001 was a little disappointing and a little dirty. There was this tootsie pop thing happening, and I didn’t think the bottle was pure. Earthy and furry, it was an affected bottle, perhaps some brett?

The 2000 was a gamy wine that seemed to be on a faster evolutionary track than some of the other vintages. It was fleshy and round with lots of caramel flavors. It also could have been a slightly advanced bottle, but it didn’t seem cooked. The 1999 was badly corked, while the 1998 was a very dry, earthy and leathery wine. It was zippy and long, but not showing much fruit. The 1997 was in a great spot. This was a delicious and creamy Roumier that still had vigor on the backside. Was this the first vintage that was ready to drink? Kass noted ‘red fruits’ in this refreshing and balanced red. The 1996 was shut down, for sure. It was full of acid still. Shy and reserved, one could still appreciate its raw material. A bit of peacock’s tail came out much later.

The flights were getting shorter, but the wines were getting longer. The 1995 had fresh red fruits on the wow side while Dr. Feelgood noted ‘licorice.’ Many feel that Roumier made the wines of the vintage and that his 1995s are epic wines. This bottle didn’t quite get there, but it was still outstanding. The 1994 was rich and nutty with earthy and foresty flavors. It was on the dry side but solid, especially given the vintage. The 1993 had all that good rust, iron and earth, that dirt under the nails action. The ’93 was strapped in leather from head to Tokyo, and its backside was especially pronounced. There were lots of oat flavors with chocolate kisses. It was an intense wine, not quite ready but still appreciated. The 1991 was my favorite of the flight, with the most stuffing. It was really good with edges of coffee and vanilla ice cream without that dessert-like sweetness. Mint and cherry brought it altogether on the palate. Yum.

The 1990 had great citricity for a ’90, with round, rich and fleshy fruit to balance it out. It was a delicious ’90, fleshing out further with citrus and red fruits. ‘All the elements of a great wine are in place with no fighting,’ some unidentifiable, wise man remembered. The 1989 was badly corked (DQ), but the 1988 was spectacular. The ’88 was a deep, dark, foresty fantasy with outstanding bread, cigar and smokehouse aromas. This was a creamy red with rock star vim and vigor. ‘So good,’ appeared in my notes. ‘Power, structure, fruit and austerity,’ came from the crowd. This was clearly the best wine so far. The 1987 was no match for the ’88, showing a rainforesty, funky, mushroomy side. It was round and twangy, dirty and a touch figgy, ready to fade off into the sunset.

The next flight had a double corked dip with the 1986 and 1982, two vintages I had been really interested to try. Roumier made great ‘86s, probably the wines of the vintage. And I have had some killer ’82 Burgs this past year, which you don’t see that often. Oh, well. Let’s talk about the 1985. This was a dusty, citrusy and spiny Burgundy, and Special K admired its ‘gorgeous nose.’ Its citrus qualities set the tone for its palate, which was ‘singular’ per Dr. Feelgood and ‘sweet like a prison roommate,’ according to another distinguished guest. Whoa, buddy. Easy! I am assuming it was a joke and not based on personal experience, but you never know lol. The 1981 was a pleasant surprise with its pleasant fruit and veggie kisses. There was still nice acid and some funk in the trunk.

It was a grand finale, even though the 1980 was slightly corked. It had a clean finish, but its palate was a bit covered up. There was some nice freshness and touches of cola still traceable. The 1979 was fantastic. This is another secretly good vintage for Red Burgundies, IMO. This was a rich and meaty Roumier, showing off battle conquests of animal, beef and blood. The perfect amount of autumn was here in this lipsmackingly great red. The 1978 was the WOTN, for sure. There was no doubt in my mind. It was love at first sip. Iron, meat, minerality, sweetness, citrus, forest, strawberry…I could go on. It was a great ending to a great vertical. It was so great I forgot to write or score the 1976. Sorry, pal.

We took votes at the end for everyone’s WOTN, and the 1978 eked out the 1990 by 6 votes to 5 ½. The 2002 had four votes and the 1993 had three. 2005, 1995, 1991 and 1985 had some votes as well.

Why, thank you, Mr. Chalet, may I have another?

There is no question that Roumier is one of the greatest Domaines in Burgundy and hence the world. Just be patient!

In Vino Veritas,
JK

I have to say, I am a bit overwhelmed this summer with all these bottles opening themselves up all around me. Actually, I last left everyone in late January, I know. Here is my semi-annual, self-imposed pilgrimage to catch up on some of the year’s most amazing evenings. I feel a lucky streak coming, as far as getting some wine notes done, but it could not possibly be as lucky as the drinking streak I have been on the past six months!

I arrived a bit ‘en retard’ one Sunday afternoon East of New York City in a far away place called the Hamptons. I actually stayed almost a month straight there, and it was a great time, but not so great for my inventory value lol. BJ was our gracious host, and we all know everyone loves BJ’s. The caviar was out by the time I arrived, and we knocked off that first tin pretty quickly.

A magnum of 2005 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos was already open, standing in the middle of the ice bucket like a white Burgundy centerpiece of the highest magnitude. The Jackal was already circling the ice bucket ready to pounce on his prey. The Raveneau was a classic Clos with its oyster shell and sea breeze aromas along with a flash of citrusy sweetness. It has a big nose that was broad-shouldered, and its palate was long and a bit smoother than the nose led me to believe. It was still young, even younger out of magnum, and just showing a touch of nutty goodness on its finish (95+M).

There were a lot more bottles in the ice bucket, which was more like a mini Stanley Cup, and a 2009 Raveneau Chablis Les Clos seemed like a logical next place to go. There were even more oyster shells to go with more slate and mineral expressions. This was better with richer fruit, perhaps aided by the bottle size versus the magnum, and/or by the forward 2009 vintage. I also wrote it had better flavors, showing more yellow hues (96).

The 2011 D’Auvenay Meursault Narvaux was very popular early on, and it was easy to see why. This was a big contrast to the Raveneau, showing huge smoke and toast in the best of ways. It was richer in the nose, much more forward and ready to party. I kept writing toasty again, along with big and chewy. As precocious as the Narvaux was, it softened in the glass sooner and fell short of outstanding status accordingly (94).

It was a wonderful group of white wine appetizers, but there was still the main course: a trio of Coche-Dury. Somehow, the 2009 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne emerged first, and it was a bit reticent and unyielding at first. A touch of glue marred its nose, and it was more brooding than I remembered or expected. Slowly over time, it started to show more roundness, more richness, and touches of nuttiness. Leather flavors emerged on its thick finish, and after an hour or so, the classic Coche kink was finally there, and the glue was gone. It was a bit of a sleeping beast, or perhaps there was something mildly chemical occurring (96).

The 2008 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres that followed stole the show. It was immediately classic, with much more smokehouse, minerals, and yellow mesquite goodness. It was long and silky, with this lemon, Italian ice flavor profile. Its finish sparkled like diamonds stuck in ice, with the yellow sun shining various hues of flavor upon it. Miss Congeniality, indeed (97).

The 2001 Coche-Dury Corton Charlemagne was unfortunately slightly corked. It sucks when those 4k bottles are genetically defective : ( One could still appreciate its full mouthfeel, its rich, smoky flavor, and its slaty, sturdy finish. It definitely was in that 96/97 category, let’s call it (96+A).

There was one more white, a 2007 D’Auvenay Auxey Duresses. This was in a great spot, with the vintage singing and the house style shining through, overcoming the ‘lesser’ terroir. It was again super smoky, round and tasty with a nice kiss of citrus. This was a drinkable, delicious wine (93).

Even though it was a brilliantly sunny afternoon on a gorgeous summer day in the Hamptons, it was time for some red. And what a red we began with, a 1990 Dujac Clos St. Denis. Dujac killed it in 1990 for sure, what a fabulous nose. There was so much red cherry fruit, blending in with the alluring forest and this edge of the wilderness. Its finish was thick like bouncing asses in rap videos; someone confirmed my ‘cherry,’ but it was too early to be popped. There was this grassy kiss of fresh Hamptons lawn, but it wasn’t the fresh Hamptons lawn lol. ‘So good,’ I wrote, there were great perfume and a sweet, maple tree-hugging goodness (98).

The air was getting rare, as out crept a 1991 Rousseau Chambertin next. I could get used to this Hamptons thing lol. This was another thoroughbred, a photo finish with the Dujac. It was a bit more regal, with more forest and animal edges and not quite the sweetness of the Dujac, but it had so much depth to its fruit. Its palate was rich, round and dusty, super deep and complex, lingering seemingly forever after it went down the hatch. It might have been the elusive 99 points BJ, but I couldn’t get it in writing (98+).

A powerful duo of Red Burgs were next, beginning with a pretty spectacular 2000 Leroy Clos de la Roche. Its nose was super fragrant; it had this combination of rose garden and gravel that reeked of French aristocracy. Its palate was so deep, rich and expressive, freakishly good. There was a vimful, slaty edge to its backside. Dare I say this was the best 2000 Red Burg I ever had? Yup (97).

The 2002 Leroy Clos de la Roche that followed had a deeper, darker nose. It wasn’t as expressive and personable as the 2000, but it was clearly more serious. Wine Daddy agreed, finding it ‘darker and brooding.’ It had the full kaleidoscope of colors in its flavor profile: red, purple and black. Ok, I guess it was missing the blue, but that was pretty appropriate since it made everyone giddy (97+).

It was on to the Rhone and a 1989 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape Hommage a Jacques Perrin. This was a rich and decadent wine, with great aromatics even though it was a sharp left turn. It had the garrigue thing going for it, and great sweetness and animal as well. The classic CduPs are ok by me (96).

A 1988 Guigal Cote Rotie La Landonne had a spicy and spiny nose along with light bacon aromas. It was zippy and long but seemed less dimensional than all of the other star-studded reds that preceded. I moved on (94).

The 1985 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline gave me a good reason to move on as it was an incredible bottle. If the La Landonne had light bacon, this was “Super Bacon,” warding off evil vegans and their healthy agenda lol. It rippled with iron and minerals in its long and extended finish. There were lots of violet hues and gyro meat flavors. There was no doubting that this wine was special; my notes started to become less so (97+).

There was a cellar raid and a fabulous flurry of incredible wines at the end:

The next thing I know, everyone was naked. Just kidding. A 2007 DRC Monty was corked, ugh! The ’11 quickly subbed in, but the Ramonet won the battle of Montrachet, and while the DRC was classic and delicious, still young with lots of butter, the Ramonet had that extra minerality and minty complexity that makes it extra special. There was more definition on its finish. The La Romanee, the first vintage made by Comte Louis Michel Liger-Belair, was a beautiful transition back to red. Perfumed, elegant and sensual, its playful red fruits tickled the back of my neck and my mouth. I have never had a bad bottle of Liger-Belair, it is literally incredible. The 1999 Jayer was corked! Fuck! Only a 10k bottle, no big deal. We drowned our sorrows with another Jayer, and this one didn’t disappoint. It was so damn delicious, that Jayer hedonism at its finest. All I wrote was delicious, 98/99 points. It definitely got the drunken +1 lol. I can barely remember the 1991 La Tache, but I do remember it was fucking great lol.

Check, please. It was time to call it a day. I think I was asleep before 8pm but cannot confirm nor deny that fact. Many thanks to our gracious host BJ and what is hopefully an annual tradition. Happy Summer everyone, drink ‘em if you got ‘em!

In Vino Veritas,
JK

Ok, so 2019 is already 1/3 over, and I have barely scratched the surface of this bountiful vintage of opened bottles. So much for staying current. Time just keeps ticking, so I decided to finally catch up, in an abridged fashion. It is better if the tree makes a sound rather than no one hearing it, right? Well, all the best bottles I drink are heard, seen, smelled and tasted by more than just me. Sharing is definitely caring when it comes to fine and rare wine, and it didn’t take me long to get in the right spirit, as I visited The Falcon on January 3rd, with a nice dinner accompanied by our even nicer wives.

The ’85 Ramonet was a killer bottle, singing on all cylinders. There is no better producer of white wine in the world between 1978 and 1992, this I can say with 100% certainty. The Batard had signature spearmint, corn with the stalks, orange marmalade, sun-dried yellows, and dry mesquites all competing fiercely in the glass. It was super complex and not declining at all. The Montrachet was oxidized, but the dueling Meo Richebourgs got us back in the swing of things. The ’95 was excellent but leaner and rustier, showing the tannins of the vintage without developing much secondary fruit. The ’88, the last vintage of Meo made by Henri Jayer, was a Rockstar. Its deep, royal purple fruit and classical Jayer spice was tough to beat. This was a magic wine. The ’53 Margaux can be profound, but it had a tough act to follow, and I have had better bottles.

It’s kind of tough to sum up nineteen wines in a few paragraphs, but here I go. The ‘85 HBB was serious and not friendly, complicated with yeasty and glue-y edges, salty, flinty and chalky, but complex. The Coche was buttery and rich, decadent and delicious, great at age ten, pure pleasure. The Roulot was smokier and leaner, and most liked the Coche better because it was much more obvious. The Roulot was elegant and long and ultimately tickled my fancy a touch more. The BBM was young and sweeter than expected. Rich and lush, it needed time but was also rather giving for a ’14.

The reds began with a simple ’76 La Miss, decent if I had it on its own but not in the category of the rest. The ’86 LLC was clearly better, but still deep, dark and tight. It was rocky and spiny like the vintage can often be. The ’88 Ducru was sadly corked. The Rousseaus were similar with their bright, citrusy, tangy, foresty and cedary personalities. The Chambertin was richer, deeper and better, with darker fruits and more vitamins, but the red strawberry side of the CSJ was very sexy. The ’11 DRC was elegant compared to the 2008 rockers, flirting with an effervescence. Someone hailed the last three as the ‘multiple orgasm flight.’ That tends to happen around me ; )

We were back to Bordeaux but in a much bigger way. The ’82 Cheval was outstanding, smooth and satiny with great red fruits and carob. Caramel and peanut joined the party, and while delicious, it was and still is not an all-time great Cheval, certainly not close to the 1990 which is a true legend. The ’83 Lafleur was Zin City like always, not their best effort. The ’89 Petrus got an ‘ALL-TIME GREAT,’ and a ‘nothing even close,’ both from me. The ’83 Riche that snuck in before our Rhones was a perfect ’83. A little brown sugar, a little lemon, a little cherry, a little cedar, a little forest and a little margarita with the salt. It was hungry like the wolf, I mean Falcon lol.

These Cornas wines were good, full of black fruits and leathery goodness with just the right kiss of citrus. The Verset was better in every way; richer, deeper, better sweetness and great vim. The Gentaz impressed me more than other recent bottles; this was smoother and blacker, a ‘rocky rock star’ per The Falcon. The Mouton was classic and classy but short of outstanding, and the Margaux was as good an ’83 as I have had. They can be very volatile, for the record.

Dinner was at Le Bernardin, hence the more white wines than usual. First off, let’s get the off bottles out of the way. The Blanchots was bretty, the ‘06 Coche corked, the ’07 was not perfect, the Lafon pre-moxed and the Dujac slightly corked. I don’t normally write up the nights where 1/3rd of the wines were off, but it does happen. The Salon was classic but lighter than the great 1996; the Roulot was fresh and lively, with a smooth and satiny personality but lacking depth. The Hedonist and Lord Byron Jr. liked the Valmur better, which was a good call, it had classic citrus and oyster shells. The ’08 Coche was rich and buttery with loads of acid, another rock n’ roll 2008. The Hedonist loved its ‘Ginsu-ness.’ The ’86 BBM was mature, and the ’89 BdM was good but not special.

The Ponsot was a bit beefy and earthy, while dark chocolaty and black, it was a bit herbal and twangy, ‘tomato soupy’ and ‘medicinal’ per others. It was also mechanical. The Lignier smoked the Ponsot; nothing new there. Its pure fruit was delicious by comparison, purple and black harmony, with great citricity and acidity. Everyone got an A for effort, but it wasn’t an A night for sure.

Sauzet remains one of the most underappreciated top white Burgundies today. This magnum showed why with its fresh, sweet, yellow fruit and nice minerality. Exotic pear and a wintry cream completed its composite. The ’04 Leflaive took it up a notch; it was a great bottle. There was more intensity and zip to its structure, and more mineral flavors with a pinch of yellow sugar goodness. The Lamarche was a bit yeasty with dark fruits and bread aromas. Its duck-like edges were nice, but it was just a bit thin, more the vintage than the wine. The Ponsot was corked, and the Chave was super elegant for this wine, with lots of gritty goodness and excellent acidity. The La Chapelle was richer and also more elegant than usual for this wine, but it still had a touch of jam and black currant flavors. The ’96 LT had the screechy acid so signature for this vintage, with beautiful greeny goodness and leather and winter flavors. Baby had back. The Meo was beefy and rich with lots of Chinese action. Szechuan scallops strangely came to mind, as did beef blood. The Latour was deep, dark and young, rich yet shy shy shy. While elegant and long, it still isn’t ready. The Redigaffi might have been ready 20 years ago, but it felt like just another “highly” rated wine that didn’t age well.

The funny thing is that if you asked me if I tasted 2008 Rousseau Chambertin and 1996 Mouton twice this year already, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you until just now, let alone once. At least I rated them consistently lol. I remember lots of wines, but I don’t remember them all. That’s why I try to write everything down!

The ’89 Krug mag was classic; rich, tasty and full-bodied with lots of nuttiness. The Verget was a huge surprise in that it was much better than expected. It was super tasty, smooth yet certainly Grand Cru. There were lots of citrus flavors with some guava exoticness. The Leflaive was sweeter with more honey and candle wax. It was ‘ready’ and a bit ‘senior’ per some of our guests. This ’96 Mouton had a bit of an oaky edge (but not negatively), with great smoke and charcoal to its nose. Spice, black fruits and minerals made the Mouton a happy ending. The ’82 Palmer was more mature yet still rich but not a great ’82. It was still excellent but a wine stuck in the barn with its horse and hay.

The Richebourg showdown saw Leroy win with its sweet raspberry fruit and cedar/mint frames. It was rich, ripe and tasty with cola and bouillon edges, while the DRC had more tea, grass and garden edges. The Rousseau see my previous note and add ‘wow’ and ‘intense.’ This DRC LT, from the same case as the one the night prior, was a slightly better bottle with much more acid and cedar. It was zippy city along with some good greeny action. The Leroy won over the LT by an overall vote of 5 to 4.

It was off to HK next, and a spectacular vertical of Hubert Lignier with three generations of the Lignier family there: Hubert, Laurent and Sebastien. I think there were 15 wines, and I remember a standout 1991 amongst many others, but I lost my notes. That’s another thing that happens here and there : ( While the Domaine went through some transition issues after the tragic death of Hubert’s son Romain, there is no doubt that over the last decade, this great producer has reclaimed its status as one of Burgundy’s best thanks to the efforts of Laurent Lignier.

The Marquis de Laguiche was the clear winner of the white flight, although they were all served a bit cold. The Niellon was a bit ripe, which Laurent said was the vintage for whites, and the Boillot was easy. Montrachet proved to be the magic terroir again with rich yellow fruits full of sunshine, along with a regal finish. The pair of ’17 and ’07 Ligniers proved to be a good match, with both providing fleshy and easy to understand experiences. Laurent found a little 2010 and a little 2007 in his 2017, and The Good Doctor was loving the delicious and more mature 2007.

The DRC vs. Leroy smackdown lived up to its pre-game hype. The 2005 was a big wine with long acidity, and the discussion about when the 2005s will finally be ready ensued. Despite its outstanding status, the 2005 was no match for the 2001 Leroy. I have had about three to four different 2001 Leroys this year, and they were all rock stars. Madame certainly hit the Burgundy bullseye in 2001! This was a ‘wow’ wine in every sense of the word, so big, so deep, so heavy yet at the same time retaining that Grand Cru freshness, elegance and style. Mad Max found it ‘full-bodied and wonderful,’ while the Paradox noted it ‘a perfect Burgundy bottle.’ Dark fruits, forest floor, tree bark and brown sugar all danced erotically together.

The last flight was another thriller, four decades carefully curated by yours truly out of our Asia retail inventory. These were just gorgeous, old bottles hanging out in stock just begging to be consumed, so I obliged. Old bottles in great condition, ladies and gentlemen, pay more attention! The La Garde was a Graves, not earth shattering but fresh, round and tasty, with nice hay and citrus flavors. It was dusty and leaner for a ’47 but still very good. The 1950 Cheval was outstanding, ‘100 points’ per one guest. It had that classic, coconut kink from this era, with the chocolate and wheat to match. Red Christmas fruits and dates abounded in this fleshy, kinky and delicious red. The ’61 Lafite was a nice wine, but it has never lived up to the legendary ’61 vintage. It was lighter and pleasant, in great condition with excellent caramel flavors. Lastly, the 1934 Haut Brion was fantastic. I have never been a fan of this entire decade in Bordeaux, giving it plenty of chances over the last 25 years. This was probably my best experience ever for the entire decade! It was hailed as a ‘Dark Knight,’ and Laurent admired its concentration. Coffee and mocha were everywhere in this inky, rich ’34.

We also had a 2001 Hubert Lignier Morey St. Denis VV, which Laurent admired as ‘a beautiful vintage,’ and a 2006 Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche, but I didn’t take notes or write scores down for those. It was a long night with lots of introductions and discussions by these great winemakers.

Clos de la Chapelle is is a relatively new name for an existing Domaine that has been producing esteemed wines for many, many years. Burgundy connoisseur and collector Mark O’Connell purchased the Louis Boillot estate in Volnay in 2010 and has subsequently added additional vineyard purchases to form one of the top boutique Domaines in the Côte de Beaune. We had orders for 25 cases of his Corton Charlemagne; too bad we only got five! It was an impressive span of four vintages, and his 2016s were super fresh, with the Corton Bressandes ruling the roost on this night.

Another relatively new name is that of Bizot, who is quickly becoming a cult phenomenon. Production is part of the story; only 1000-1500 cases are made for the entire Domaine any given vintage! This is about 8 to 10 wines, I believe. But Jean-Yves Bizot is a true “artist explorer” who beats to his own drum, creating a unique style that have many in adoration. He made clear, risky and highly engaging choices: low yield, short pruning, strictly limited treatments, both in the vineyards and the cellars, manual harvest, meticulous grape selection…this scrupulous work, combined with his outstanding intuition, has resulted in wines that aficionados have recognized as beautiful, hand-crafted jewels. It was a great night featuring these three great Domaines!

We had an auction, and we drank a lot of DRC. I don’t take notes at an auction, I can’t, I’m actually working.

The 1976 Roulot Charmes was an incredible wine, all the more incredible by having Jean-Marc Roulot in the room. It was a magnum in perfect condition, full of rich butter and honey aromas and flavors. Hints of autumn leaves and incredible musk oozed out of the glass. This was sweet, tasty and delicious, make that ‘Butterlicious’ lol. I could not stop drinking the wine; every other white wine seemed irrelevant. Etienne de Montille had the line of the night when he told Jean-Marc, “Your father made much better wine than you.” Jean-Marc and I burst out laughing lololol.

Like I said, the other whites were basically irrelevant, and I really need to finish this beast of an article, so let’s touch upon some of the reds. The 1978 Roumier Bonnes Mares was about as good as it gets. I would be fortunate to have another superlative example of this incredible wine about two weeks later in New York, then again one month later in New York at that ‘Power Lunch,’ and I can safely say ‘tasted thrice with consistent notes.’ Etienne cooed how this wine had ‘everything.’ This wine gave off so many pheromones with its rich, musky nose. It was smooth and almost buttery in its decadence, delicate yet delicious, pure catnip. The 1959 DRC Richebourg was not far behind. Its core was older, possessing more brown sugar, but there was still this candied red goodness, that sweetness from the warmer ’59 vintage. Animal sweat and donut glaze rounded out my notes for this ‘so good, all good’ wine. Perfect maturity. The Fourrier and Lignier stood out for me amongst the ‘younger’ reds; these are two class acts making classic and classy wines. But, of course, we needed a closer, and the 1990 DRC La Tache was up for the challenge. While bottle variation can be an issue for this wine, when it is on, there is nothing better. This bottle was turned fully on and then some. I almost got stampeded when I opened it, as glasses emerged from all angles for just one swallow. I think I did my best James Harden imitation and had to do a 360 around a pick by a column to gather my thoughts lol. The ’90 LT was a beast, thick and rich, a man amongst boys (and a couple of aforementioned elder men). Its dark fruits cascaded down my hatch like waterfalls, and its spice and decadence were almost unimaginable. When I think too hard about it, I start smacking my lips unconsciously. I want more.

Let’s forget the bubblies since this was a Rhone night. The ’89 Chave Blanc was a spectacular white that was saucy, voluptuous and creamy. This was a honeyed and exotic wine with tropical goodness and great weight. The ’90 Rayas had that signature kirsch nose, super impressive with its sweet core of red fruits and musk. It was so pure, so stylish and so Grenache. The Hommage was a bit dirty and earthy, very dark in contrast to the Rayas. This bottle was a bit beefy, and not as good as a bottle that I had two weeks later with one of the Perrins. The ’90 Celestins won the haed-to-head on this night, and while its fruit was leaner, its style was longer. It had great sauvage, white pepper and minerality, and I was surprised by its elegance.

The two flights of four Chaves was an event in its own right. Dapper Dave found both the 1991 and 1990 ‘explosive,’ and the ’91 had beautiful dark, violet fruits with light bacon and light pepper nuances. It oozed seduction. The ’90 was richer and deeper with more animal qualities. It was smokier with more bacon to it, and someone admired its ‘big BBQ.’ The ’79 had even more animal, trending up with age it seemed, and it was a little stinky with some barn action. Someone found it ‘buxom,’ and it was elegant, smooth and creamy, just a lighter vintage. The ’76 was even lighter, with less stuffing than the ’79, and more menthol. It was lean and minerally, still solid but not spectacular.

I have had much better bottles of ’78 La Chapelle, so instead I will talk about the outstanding ’76. There was an exotic cereal nose to it with wheat flavors and a round and fleshy personality. Its finish was long and regal, and this bottle outshined the ’78 on this night, which probably doesn’t happen that often.

The 1966 Guigal Cote-Rotie La Mouline, being the 99 point wine that it always was, gets a full tasting note accordingly here! This bottle took no prisoners and immediately asserted itself as the wine of the night. There was still great freshness here, with a touch of good stink at first, and a round and rich personality that showed amazing spice, flesh, and minerality. There were the usual and delicious bacon, violet and pepper flavors, but it was dominated by decadent Gyro meat. It was so aromatic, unfolding continuously, ending up snowcapped as well. Lord Byron Jr. admired its concentration, and others its leathery side (99).

The Chapoutier and Jaboulet were impressive, older Rhones. Jetski admired the clarity and transparency of the Chapoutier, which was served blind, and guessed to be Cote Rotie due to some similarities with the La Mouline. There was a lot of menthol in this aged Syrah, while the Les Cedres was pure deliciousness. It got ‘one of the WOTNs’ by one guest, and ‘flawless’ from another. This was a blue-blooded and berried wine, with sweet fruit and great mint. The Jamet was a last call, and a great one. This is the era of Jamet that makes collectors swoon. It had dark, deep and rich midnight-like fruit flavors, with supporting olive, leather and meat. It was gripping and oozy with long acidity. Bravo!

There were still four more events in January, all related to our spectacular Grande Fete de Bourgogne auction February 1st. I think we will save those for the next article, or make it a few! I hope you don’t mind the abridged notes this time, but the hole had gotten too big. Let’s see if I can catch up, and if I can ever start doing/writing my ‘three notes a day’ idea. I could have had 120 notes by now in 2019!!!

I hope you enjoyed ‘A Month in the Life,’ even if I fell a week short.

On one Spring Friday afternoon in New York City, eight serious oenophiles gathered in New York City for a significant lunch of 1971 and 1978 Red Burgundies. Actually, that’s right, there were seven. Big Boy had a tummy ache lol. It was a significant week of significant events, including Dapper Dave’s 40th Birthday celebration the night before which put Big Boy on a temporary shelf, even though I left two hours after him. It’s not easy being the Chief Drinking Officer, let me tell you ; )

Back to our event, which started on the wrong foot with a (DQ) bottle of 1971 Salon. The Mogul solved that problem very quickly with an outstanding bottle of 2011 Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres. It had that great Coche nose with a spritely kink and a delicate, playful spice. It was delicious, balanced, round and beautiful (95).

There were a couple of squirrely Domaine Leflaives next, starting with a yeasty 1996 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet. There was a touch of tropical something that indicated this wine was not completely pure. The palate was much better, you could feel the breed in the bottle. It was long and kept improving, but I suppose one could argue it was a flawed bottle. I still felt I experienced all of its first class personality and material (96).

The 1990 Domaine Leflaive Chevalier Montrachet was definitely a more advanced bottle. While it had a rich and nutty nose and an oily mouthfeel, there was definitely a brown kink to its flavor. This I would call flawed without question (94A).

The rough seas continued with the first red of our official program, the 1971 Roumier Bonnes Mares. The nose possessed lots of positive brown sugar aromas, although brown sugar can be a sign of an advanced quality. These were positive ones, encased by a lot of ceramic edges. Red fruits and tomatoes abounded along with dusty, forest floor action. The palate was round and a bit square, and while it had nice acidity, this bottle wasn’t as thrilling as it could/should be. It was tough to say this was an affected bottle, but it wasn’t a perfect one, either (92?).

From here on out, we rolled a lucky seven, as the next seven wines were all superlatively spectacular, or spectacularly superlative, which ever you think sounds better! The first was a fantastic bottle of 1978 Roumier Bonnes Mares, which was also WOTN at our 36 vintage vertical of Roumier Bonnes Mares at the end of January (yes, I know I haven’t written that one up yet). The ’78 was brimming with pure red fruit, almost oceanic with its kaleidoscope of red. There was great spice, great musk and great mushroom and truffle complexity. Nice kisses of forest and brown sugar (the non-advanced kind!) rounded out this amazing wine. There was super length to this special stuff, and it held as its finish continued to smack my lips again and again (98).

A stand alone 1978 Dujac Clos St. Denis was another great bottle, although it was more feminine and elegant in style. It was more floral, with more purple to go with its red, very fresh for a ’78. There were some Chinese tea flavors to go with its earthy flavors on its finish. There was a touch of good dirty here (96).

A pair of ’71 Musignys began with a 1971 Drouhin Musigny. This was another great nose with orange fruits, mesquite, leather and spice. While tender, it was still rich. It may have been just turning the corner of its maturity plateau, but there was no doubting its tasty, delicious personality. Its acid came out more after some beef, and its rich, orange and autumn flavors weren’t going anywhere. This was an elegant Musigny that maintained its meaty goodness (96).

The 1971 Comte de Vogue Musigny VV had a similar profile to the Drouhin with a touch more flesh. It, too, was rich and meaty with orange hues, although it showed more rusty profiles. Diamondz thought it showed ‘a little more fruit,’ and I couldn’t disagree, but we all thought that it didn’t hold in the glass as well as the Drouhin (95).

The 1971 DRC La Tache had a special nose with that classic DRC/LT spice, mint, rose and oil. There were decadent cherries soaked in something great that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. This was rich and sexy, ‘smokin’ per one of our group. Delicious and great appeared in my notes on multiple occasions, and its long, deep palate abounded with spice, acid and pure sex appeal. ‘So LT,’ cooed Diamondz. Once again, the 1971 La Tache delivered the ultimate wine experience (99).

The 1971 DRC Richebourg was close behind. Everyone was loving it; we were all in love with just about everything at this point lol. The Riche was a bit more earthy, possessing more structure in its nose than the LT, although it also possessed the usual signature, mature DRC style as well. There was great intensity to this rusty red, which had a great melange of tomato, red and orange fruits (97).

There was one more wine to be had, a deep, dark 1978 DRC Richebourg. There was a citrus twist to its nose, along with some brown sugar goodness. This was a beefy, hearty and full-bodied wine, showing the more masculine side of the ’78 vintage compared to the ’71s. I do prefer 1971 in general, by just a smidge (96+).

The restaurant accidentally opened up Big Boy’s 1978 DRC La Tache, but Jetski insisted on saving it for Big Boy later. We did see him that evening, and it was about as good as that wine gets. By the time I had that wine, it was my fourth wine event of that day, so I didn’t take any notes, but I do remember me thinking (98+). There was also a 1982 DRC La Tache from the Time Capsule collection that stunned and gunned down many other wines in front of it (96). I will save the rest for later, maybe. A big thanks to the Capital Curator himself, aka Jetski, for organizing a proper New York City Power Lunch.